The Norfolk Four: False Confessions a Miscarriage of Justice The Frontline documentary, The Confessions (2010), tells the story of the Norfolk Four; four innocent men who were ultimately convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko. As horrendous and appalling as Michelle Bosko’s murder was, that was not the most shocking point of the film. More astonishing is the fact that four innocent men were convicted of the crime with the help false confessions obtained by the police investigating the case. This despite the fact that police and prosecutors had physical evidence and testimony from the real murderer that pointed to the innocence of the Norfolk four. Although, the documentary primarily focuses on the coercive police interrogation …show more content…
The tactics used by the police while investigating the murder and rape of Michelle Bosko were coercive; the men claim they were interrogated for hours, threatened with the death penalty, and lied to in order to obtain the confessions. One of the men, Derek Tice, claims that while being questioned by the police he asked to speak to a lawyer only to have his request ignored a clear violation of his rights. Original suspect, Danial Williams, describes being questioned for eight hours by Detective Evans only to have Detective Ford brought in when Evans attempts to obtain a confession fail. With the use of such interrogating tactics each of the men confesses to the crime. When inaccuracies in their statements were found, such was the case in Danial Williams’ original confession when he claims that he beat Ms. Bosko with a shoe, the police interrogate him again nudging him towards a more possible explanation and …show more content…
Omar Abdul Ballard had admitted to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko; his was the only semen found. Furthermore, Ballard tried to tell police that he alone had committed the crimes. Yet despite the physical evidence and Ballard’s statements, the courts decided to continue their cases against the other four men. Even the lawyers that should have been trying to defend the Norfolk Four did little to actually defend them against the charges and instead opted to try to get them a lighter sentence. Their own lawyers seemed unable to get over the fact that the men had confessed to the crime. Even with explanations of long interrogations, threats, and lies by the police these lawyers were unwilling to believe that innocent men would confess to such a heinous crime. Instead, they were urged to “cooperate” with the police and tell the “truth”. With this type of advice the men went up to the witness stand and committed perjury lying under oath and relaying their false confessions to the jury. The problem it seems is that the police and the courts were not interested in the truth or justice, they are looking for an easy way to close a case. They were looking for someone to blame and they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong when evidence seemed to show they had a made a
This illustrates the refusal of the rights of victims and the inevitable denial of justice for society. The coronial inquest that was conducted in 2011, corrected some of the initial issues with the investigation. Before the inquest, vital DNA evidence was disposed of, as a result of human error, which meant that the likely suspect could not be identified. As a result of human error the inquest provided some form of justice for society but due to how late it was conducted the family did not receive justice
To avoid being arrested for a Mann Act violation, both Victoria Price and Ruby Bates accused the Scottsboro Boys of raping them while aboard the train. Although both women accused the Scottsboro Boys, Ruby Bates recanted her story of the rape, and eventually, served as a witness for the defense. Victoria Price, however, refused to recant her story (“Trials of Scottsboro Boys”). Price’s testimony was inconsistent and evasive. She used ignorance and bad memory to avoid answering difficult questions.
In December, 2011, two years after the unpleasant homicide of Wayne Boyce, the evidence collected for this particular crime suggested Prima Facie existing in the allegations made. The case then went to trial in the NSW Supreme Court of Australia. Where A 19 year old teenager referred by the initials of his name AH as he was a juvenile, pleaded guilty towards the manslaughter of Mr Wayne Boyce, 23 years of age.
This is when I had known that the criminal justice system had mad various errors with this case. For instance the only evidence that the police had, had at the time was a description of the suspect, from the victim’s husband whose adrenaline level was very high. In my opinion when a traumatic thing just occurred I think it would of been best to of asked the eye witness what the suspect had looked like multiple times and giving a good length time period between when I asked. As well as when they arrested Brenton, the first mistake I noticed was how they claimed they found/captured the murderer of Mary Ann Stevens right away. The second mistake I noticed was how they asked the victim’s husband if Brenton Butler was the one who had pulled the trigger killing his wife. Now usually from what I’ve seen when police want someone to be identified the police do a couple things: 1. Capture Multiple people and 2. Have them stand in a police station while the witness picks out who he/she suspects was the suspect. Now the police did not do that, they captured one suspect and had him sit in the back of a cop car while the eye witness, which in this case was Mary Ann’s husband, judge from a distance to see if that was the boy who killed his wife. Additionally when they made that arrest my immediate question was why did the forensic team in which ever unit test Brenton Butler hands and clothes for gun
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
They had an alibi witness, a gas receipt, a ticket on the day of the murder. A police officer who would not come unless the judge subpoena him and the judge of course refused and would not pay the $650 to summon him. There were also two jailhouse snitches who lied about their testimony. The police misconduct was used in how they charged these individuals originally and how they have been accused initially with robbery, which later turned into murder. The police created the story and intimidated an eye witness who refused to testify and threatened to charge her with the murder if she refused. The attorneys told a moving tale and Ron Keine and company ended up being convicted. This case was before DNA testing but what exonerated these individuals was the actual murder confessing to the crimes. The entire case seemed like a fluke and malicious attack on these people. A guy in Carolina, confessed to all charges and had an epiphany and told the police where the weapon was located and how everything happened and how he dragged the body. He had to fight to get the police to accept his confession because the police were acting as if they already had their
On June 20, 2001 a woman by the name of Andrea Yates, stunned the whole country with one of the most bizarre acts of violence that a parents could ever do to their own children. She called her husband at work and told him “I did it” confused by what was going on, he rush home only to find his house filled with officers of the law. The husband asked, “What is going on?”, and only to found out that his wife had drowned all five of their children.
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
"The West Memphis Three Trial: Who was the real killer or killers?." The West Memphis Three
The conditions of an interrogation room, small and dark, make it easy for the interrogators to get in one’s head. The hostile conditions create a divide and discomfort between the suspect and the interrogator, already losing trust on both parties. “He eventually confessed, but investigators had to ‘spoonfeed’ him the details”(Patrick). The suspects feel uncomfortable and scared of the interrogators therefore, they feel the need to please the police, even if the idea did not come from them. In this case, the suspect Michael Crowe was under an immense amount of trauma, getting rushed in a cop car from the crime scene straight to the police station. After being interrogated for three and a half hours he was taken to a different location to get interviewed, “he was emotionally drained and so tired he could barely walk”(Warden 13). In the second interview one interrogator asked Crowe to write a letter to his dead sister he was accused of killing, “it is almost like I am being convinced of this[more] than really knowing it...I pray to God that you forgive me for what they say I did”(Warden 13). Crowe uses the phrase “what they say I did” proving that the confession was not his idea, but the police’s instead. He was innocent and the police forced him to make up a story and confess to a crime he did not commit, utilizing the mental strain of interrogation against
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that Wieland bears the fault in the murder of Catharine Wieland and her children.